RESEARCH PAPER
The impact of thinking about supportive relationships on interpersonal defensiveness. Does it matter who thinks, about whom, and in what way?
1
SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland
Submission date: 2019-11-03
Final revision date: 2020-02-14
Acceptance date: 2020-03-25
Online publication date: 2020-04-27
Publication date: 2020-07-20
Current Issues in Personality Psychology 2020;8(2):108-118
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
the role of personality in interpersonal relations and social behaviorsindividual differencesquality of life and well being
ABSTRACT
Background:
The aim of this study was to test the effects of thinking about supportive relationships on interpersonal defensiveness among participants with different levels of attachment security. The effects were examined depending on closeness with a visualized person and an ecosystem or egosystem perspective of thinking about him/her.
Participants and procedure:
After taking the bogus emotional intelligence test and completing the attachment questionnaire, the participants (N = 124) visual-ized an acquaintance or a close person, adopting the ecosystem or the egosystem perspective on thinking about him/her. Subse-quently the participants received unfavorable feedback on their bogus test results and completed measures of defensiveness in an anticipated conversation with the researcher.
Results:
The high-securely attached individuals reported less comfort in an anticipated conversation with the researcher after close well-wishing person visualization than after well-wishing acquaintance visualization. The low-securely attached participants showed greater emotional openness to the researcher after ecosystem thinking about any well-wishing person than after egosystem thinking.
Conclusions:
The key results suggest that some aspects of interpersonal defensiveness among insecurely attached people can be reduced by a shift from an ego- to an ecosystem perspective of thinking about their relationships. In the next research step, it seems espe-cially important to explore whether therapeutic work focusing on ecosystem orientation can overcome the attachment problems in relationships.
The aim of this study was to test the effects of thinking about supportive relationships on interpersonal defensiveness among participants with different levels of attachment security. The effects were examined depending on closeness with a visualized person and an ecosystem or egosystem perspective of thinking about him/her.
Participants and procedure:
After taking the bogus emotional intelligence test and completing the attachment questionnaire, the participants (N = 124) visual-ized an acquaintance or a close person, adopting the ecosystem or the egosystem perspective on thinking about him/her. Subse-quently the participants received unfavorable feedback on their bogus test results and completed measures of defensiveness in an anticipated conversation with the researcher.
Results:
The high-securely attached individuals reported less comfort in an anticipated conversation with the researcher after close well-wishing person visualization than after well-wishing acquaintance visualization. The low-securely attached participants showed greater emotional openness to the researcher after ecosystem thinking about any well-wishing person than after egosystem thinking.
Conclusions:
The key results suggest that some aspects of interpersonal defensiveness among insecurely attached people can be reduced by a shift from an ego- to an ecosystem perspective of thinking about their relationships. In the next research step, it seems espe-cially important to explore whether therapeutic work focusing on ecosystem orientation can overcome the attachment problems in relationships.
REFERENCES (39)
1.
Admoni, S. (2006). Attachment security and eating disorders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bar-Ilan Uni-versity, Ramat Gan, Israel.
2.
Arndt, J., Schimel, J., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2002). The intrinsic self and defensiveness: Evidence that activation the intrinsic self reduces self-handicaping and conformity. Personality and Social Bulletin, 28, 671–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616....
3.
Baldwin, M. W. (2007). On priming security and insecurity. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/104784....
4.
Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-cognitive conceptual-ization of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 71, 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3....
5.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3....
6.
Baum, A., & Andersen, S. (1999). Interpersonal roles in transference: Transient mood states under the condition of significant–other resemblance. Social Cognition, 17, 161–185. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1....
7.
Canevello, A., & Crocker, J. (2010). Creating good relationships: Responsiveness, relationship quality, and inter-personal goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/a00181....
8.
Carnelley, K. B., & Rowe, A. C. (2007). Repeated priming of attachment security influences later views of self and relationships. Personal Relationships, 14, 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475....
9.
Cheavens, J. S., Feldman, D. B., Woodward, J. T., & Snyder, C. R. (2006). Hope in cognitive psychotherapies: On working with client strengths. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 2, 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1891/jcop.2....
10.
Cramer, P. (2000). Defense mechanisms in psychology today. Further processes for adaptation. American Psy-chologist, 55, 637–646. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-....
11.
Crocker, J. (2008). From egosystem to ecosystem: Implications for learning, relationships, and well-being. In H. A. Wayment & J. J. Brauer (Eds.), Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 63–72). Washington, DC: APA.
12.
Crocker, J. (2011). The paradoxical consequences of interpersonal goals: Relationships, distress, and the self. Psychological Studies, 56, 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646....
13.
Crocker, J., & Canevello, A. (2008). Creating and undermining social support in communal relationships: The role of compassionate and self-image goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3....
14.
Crocker, J., Canevello, A., Breines, J. G., & Flynn, H. (2010). Interpersonal goals and change in anxiety and dys-phoria in first-semester college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 1009–1024. htps://doi.org/10.1037/a0019400.
15.
Crocker, J., & Garcia, J. (2009). Downward and upward spirals in intergroup interactions: The role of egosystem and ecosystem goals. Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 229–245). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
16.
Crocker, J., Niiya, Y., & Mischkowski, D. (2008). Why does writing about important values reduce defensive-ness? Self-affirmation and the role of positive other-directed feelings. Psychological Science, 19, 740–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467....
17.
Crocker, J., Olivier, M. A., & Nuer, N. (2009). Self-image goals and compassionate goals: Costs and benefits. Self and Identity, 8, 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/152988....
18.
Cyranowski, J. M., Hofkens, T. L., Swartz, H. A., & Gianaros, P. J. (2011). Thinking about a close relationship differentially impacts cardiovascular stress responses among depressed and nondepressed women. Health Psychology, 30, 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/a00230....
19.
Downey, G., Mougios, V., Ayduk, O., London, B., & Shoda, Y. (2004). Rejection sensitivity and the defensive motivational system: Insights from the startle response to rejection cues. Psychological Science, 15, 668–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956....
20.
Fitzpatrick, J., & Lafontaine, M. F. (2017). Attachment, trust, and satisfaction in relationships: Investigating actor, partner, and mediating effects. Personal Relationships, 24, 640–662. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.1....
21.
Gilbert, P. & Procter, S. (2006). Compassionate mind training for people with high shame and self-criticism: overview and pilot study of a group therapy approach. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 13, 353–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.50....
22.
Gillath, O., Selcuk, E., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Moving toward a secure attachment style: Can repeated security priming help? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1651–1666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751....
23.
Kahn, J. H., Hucke, B. E., Bradley, A. M., Glinski, A. J., & Malak, B. L. (2012). The Distress Disclosure Index: a research review and multitrait-multimethod examination. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/a00257....
24.
Kumashiro, M., & Sedikides, C. (2005). Taking on board liability-focused information. Close positive relation-ships as a self-bolstering resource. Psychological Science, 16, 732–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467....
25.
Kuncewicz, D. (2012, July). The impact of close person visualization on emotions depending on interpersonal perspective adoption and individual traits. Paper presented at the International Association for Relationship Research Conference, Chicago, IL.
26.
Kuncewicz, D., Niiya, Y., & Crocker, J. (2015). Are compassionate and self-image goals comparable across cul-tures? Polish Psychological Bulletin, 46, 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1515/ppb-20....
27.
Mallinckrodt, B. (2007). A call to broaden and build Mikulincer and Shaver’s work on the benefits of priming attachment security. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 168–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/104784....
28.
Mayer, B., & Merckelbach, H. (1999). Unconscious processes, subliminal stimulation, and anxiety. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 571–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-....
29.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. (2001). Attachment theory and intergroup bias: Evidence that priming the secure base schema attenuates negative reactions to out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-....
30.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Bar-On, N., & Ein-Dor, T. (2010). The pushes and pulls of close relationships: At-tachment insecurities and relational ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 450–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/a00173....
31.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg, R. A. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and altruism: Boosting attachment security increases compassion and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 817–839. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3....
32.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Horesh, N. (2006). Attachment bases of emotion regulation and posttraumatic adjustment. In D. K. Snyder, J. Simpson, & J. N. Hughes (Eds.), Emotion regulation in couples and families: Pathways to dysfunction and health (pp. 77–99). Washington, DC: APA.
33.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, devel-opment, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotions, 27, 77–102. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024....
34.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P., & Rom, E. (2011). The effects of implicit and explicit security priming on creative problem solving. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 519–531. https://doi:10.1080/02699931.2....
35.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in rela-tionships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2....
36.
Nathan, P., Stuart, S., & Dolan, S. (2000). Research on psychotherapy efficacy and effectiveness. Between Scyl-la and Charybdis? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 1084–1085. https://doi.org/10.1037//00332....
37.
Pierce, T., & Lydon, J. (1998). Priming relational schemas: Effects of contextually activated and chronically accessible interpersonal expectations on responses to a stressful event. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1441–1448. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-....
38.
Schimel, J., Arndt, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2001). Being accepted for who we are: Evidence that so-cial validation of the intrinsic self reduces general defensiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 80, 35–32. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-....
39.
Whitfield, C. L. (1993). Boundaries and relationships: Knowing, protecting, and enjoying the self. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc.
Copyright: © Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2353-561X |
| ISSN: | 2353-4192 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
